Yesterday, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution to file an "amicus" brief in opposition to Arizona's law allowing police to verify immigration status of individuals who are apprehended for other cause. I will concede that Portland is such a well-run city with no major problems that council time can be used to castigate the laws of other states with relative impunity: we have no criminal aliens here, no gang members, no decaying streets, no conflicts between police and public, no drugs, no assaults, nary a murder, traffic is virtually non-existent since every automobile owner voluntarily bicycles to downtown or takes MAX, all of our streets are smooth and well-marked, and all water and sewer projects cost far less than budgeted, so users get discounted rates as boot.
Oh, wait. You want to talk about the REAL WORLD? My bad.
When city commissioners such as Amanda Fritz compare those who harbor illegal aliens to the persons who concealed ANNE FRANK, it's time for drug-testing city hall.
The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, 3500 acres of wilderness south of Tucson and on the border of Mexico, is CLOSED to American citizens due to the drug smugglers, "coyotes," and other heavily armed thugs. Is this what you want for your adopted country, Mrs. Fritz? Was Anne Frank a drug mule, was she a murderess, a mercenary thug, or was she a victim of a madman's twisted eugenics goals? Is murdering ranchers on their own property some noble pastime to you? Is that the lawless future you wish for Portland, Mrs. Fritz; Mr. Adams; Mr. Leonard; Mr. Saltzman; Mr. Fish?
Imagine, if you can, Washington Park as being on the border of another country. Now imagine that park extending to the Willamette River. Now imagine it to be such a war zone that you are forbidden to enter it, even though you partially own it. No Saturday Market, no Waterfront Park, no city hall: all overrun by armed criminals to whom you are merely another annoying target to be executed with no more remorse than swatting a fly.
And they are cancerously enlarging "their territory."
Welcome to Arizona, Mrs. Fritz: you ain't in Kansas anymore.
Portland, we can, we MUST, do better than this.
How Do You Spell "Thug?"
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
"DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!!"
The titles of these dangerous, anti-American books are:
"The Constitution of the United States of America," and
"The Declaration of Independence," and
"The Federalist Papers."
These dangerous, outdated documents create a clear and present danger to the agenda of the current Congress and Administration, and must never be allowed to fall into the hands of our impressionable youth, lest their thinking become warped, and they begin to long for Freedom, Smaller Government, and Human Rights from GOD!!
Remember, YOU WERE WARNED!!
p.s. stay locked and loaded.
Dear Congressional Representative:
Dear Congressman (*****) D-OR:
What is your reaction to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's criticism of Arizona's recent statute enforcing existing Federal immigration laws during his speech to the Congress of the United States?
Sincerely,
NeonLeon
Dear NeonLeon:
On May 20, 2010, President Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress. During his address, he made statements criticizing the state of Arizona's recently passed illegal immigration enforcement bill at which point some members of Congress reacted by standing and applauding his comments. President Calderon's address conflicted with a previously scheduled meeting with constituents from Oregon's Fifth District and I was not present in the Chamber when his comments were made.
Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on issues that are important to you and our community.
Sincerely,
Congressman D-OR
What is your reaction to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's criticism of Arizona's recent statute enforcing existing Federal immigration laws during his speech to the Congress of the United States?
Sincerely,
NeonLeon
Dear NeonLeon:
On May 20, 2010, President Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress. During his address, he made statements criticizing the state of Arizona's recently passed illegal immigration enforcement bill at which point some members of Congress reacted by standing and applauding his comments. President Calderon's address conflicted with a previously scheduled meeting with constituents from Oregon's Fifth District and I was not present in the Chamber when his comments were made.
Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on issues that are important to you and our community.
Sincerely,
Congressman D-OR
THANKS FOR THE NON-ANSWER: WE'RE TWO-FOR-TWO SO FAR.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
2nd Amendment Trivia
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 to 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century by the use of "gun control" = 56 million!!
Australians were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars, or nearly $800 per weapon. The first year results are below (and subsequent years have continued to add violent crimes to the increases in numbers):
Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent, assaults up 8.6percent.
Armed robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned their weapons in, the criminals did not, and the criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey are unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and a great deal expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
(I'll wager you won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.)
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
IT'S A NO-BRAINER! DON'T LET YOUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MORE MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
HUGE Hat Tip: DrGOG !
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 to 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century by the use of "gun control" = 56 million!!
Australians were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars, or nearly $800 per weapon. The first year results are below (and subsequent years have continued to add violent crimes to the increases in numbers):
Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent, assaults up 8.6percent.
Armed robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned their weapons in, the criminals did not, and the criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey are unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and a great deal expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
(I'll wager you won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.)
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
IT'S A NO-BRAINER! DON'T LET YOUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MORE MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
HUGE Hat Tip: DrGOG !
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Sex, Drugs, and R&R
The sugggestion has been made that all Portland police oficers undergo random drug testing, a suggestion apparently made by someone who was up all night "cramming" for his own drug test.
If mandatory random drug tests are to be required of police officers, should not also firemen and EMTs be tested? And why not ALL city employees? It is blatantly obvious that both caffeine and meth is in short supply both at city hall and most city shops.
On a grander scale, why is drug testing not mandatory for welfare, unemployment compensation, workers' comp claimants, and/or food stamp recipients? It's your money that pays them, shouldn't you have a say in who gets a check, and who gets cut off? If little Elvis is a stoner, should he be "entitled" to public payments? If Miss Sunshine snorts or spikes meth, does she truly need food stamps or an Oregon Trail card to protect her kids?
I find it mildly hypocritical that the OLCC punishes bartenders for "overserving," and yet will sell via their monopolistic retail outlets a case of "Panther Sweat" on demand: no chance of overserving there. And now we are seeing "medical" marijuana cafes to service those poor sufferers for whom the only relief is a bong hit of some killer skunkweed. Surely there's no hypocricy there.
Drug abuse by police officers surely exists, and a "sweep" might net one, or even two errant officers: you know, those people who daily risk their lives just by showing up for work, unlike most politicians, who are more likely to risk YOUR live by showing up for work. And the means of "masking" drug abuses are available over-the-counter to police as well as to welfare mothers, compensation fraudsters, and politicians as well.
Drug testing? As a retired Teamster, we were drug-tested long before it became the vogue: the guys who stayed "clean" have nothing to fear. So, in all "fairness," let's see mandatory random testing for ALL government workers and for all "entitlement" recipients as well. It is YOUR money, isn't it?.
If mandatory random drug tests are to be required of police officers, should not also firemen and EMTs be tested? And why not ALL city employees? It is blatantly obvious that both caffeine and meth is in short supply both at city hall and most city shops.
On a grander scale, why is drug testing not mandatory for welfare, unemployment compensation, workers' comp claimants, and/or food stamp recipients? It's your money that pays them, shouldn't you have a say in who gets a check, and who gets cut off? If little Elvis is a stoner, should he be "entitled" to public payments? If Miss Sunshine snorts or spikes meth, does she truly need food stamps or an Oregon Trail card to protect her kids?
I find it mildly hypocritical that the OLCC punishes bartenders for "overserving," and yet will sell via their monopolistic retail outlets a case of "Panther Sweat" on demand: no chance of overserving there. And now we are seeing "medical" marijuana cafes to service those poor sufferers for whom the only relief is a bong hit of some killer skunkweed. Surely there's no hypocricy there.
Drug abuse by police officers surely exists, and a "sweep" might net one, or even two errant officers: you know, those people who daily risk their lives just by showing up for work, unlike most politicians, who are more likely to risk YOUR live by showing up for work. And the means of "masking" drug abuses are available over-the-counter to police as well as to welfare mothers, compensation fraudsters, and politicians as well.
Drug testing? As a retired Teamster, we were drug-tested long before it became the vogue: the guys who stayed "clean" have nothing to fear. So, in all "fairness," let's see mandatory random testing for ALL government workers and for all "entitlement" recipients as well. It is YOUR money, isn't it?.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)